NationStates Jolt Archive

Which do u believe.. please also cite an intelligent reason as to why u believe what u believe in

here we go *heats up some popcorn*

thought id ask.. boards been quiet

here we go *heats up some popcorn*

What are you talking about? This is an extremely original topic -- how come nobody thought about it before?

Using my pyschic powers, I predict a flamewar in the near future.

I won't even involve myself, as I plan on going for a run in 30 minutes.

What are you talking about? This is an extremely original topic -- how come nobody thought about it before?

you're right! this one has a poll!

please also cite an intelligent reason
You Have To Remeber, No One On This Forum Gives An Intelligent Reason For Anything.

Well as u can see im a relatively new member to this board and i dont remember seeing this topic on here.. sorry but please discuss anyways

Ps: my personal belief is mainly creationism but God set the things in motion to allow the animals to evolve (if that makes any sense)

Phew. I thought the Apocolypse was going to happen. We haven't had a topic like this in almost 3 or 4 days. Thank you for saving the world from destruction.

You Have To Remeber, No One On This Forum Gives An Intelligent Reason For Anything.

true...true....

Well as u can see im a relatively new member to this board and i dont remember seeing this topic on here.. sorry but please discuss anyways

Ps: my personal belief is mainly creationism but God set the things in motion to allow the animals to evolve (if that makes any sense)

That's called ID. Wow, you must be a true newbie.

I guess I'll fire the first shot then *bracing himself for a bombardment by hiding beneath a swivel chair with a helmet on*

To be honest, I think creationism because it sufficiently explains the beginning of life in its most basic and straightforward solution (I'm an Ockham's Razor thinker, you see). Furthermore, it seems paradoxical to me that people, as a whole, seek a purpose to life beyond themselves and without any kind of diety, it cheapens the values of life, death, and makes it impossible to fulfill any kind of meaning to life (that is, without making your own- which to me seems rather irrelevent because our aim is so inconsistant throughtout our lives to create a solid purpose on our own).

I do, however, believe in MICRO-evoloution (that is, the exchange of traits between animals, like how we get different breeds of dog). If you talk about Darwin and MACRO-evolution, then I do not believe in it.

I've recently stopped believing in evolution and started believing what i call "unintelligent design"- God created man. But God's an idiot. He fucked us up to make us arrogant, seslfish and stupid.

Or maybe Im just in a shit mood. Who knows?

My thoughts are sigged.

thought id ask.. boards been quiet

wtf?

Also, I don't believe evolution. It's just simply a fact of life.

Which do u believe.. please also cite an intelligent reason as to why u believe what u believe in

From your post I guess you're an American, and that's without even looking at your username...

Time to kick it off!!

Evolution: because the God 'argument' doesn't give a realistic origin, either, it only relegates the argument to "So where did God come from?" If we're going to question origins, then the question must answer the most fundamental questions of creation. Saying that "God simply Is and always has been" is equivalent to saying that "Humans simply Are and always have been". Ergo it is not a viable argument, as it does not attempt to answer the question. Aside from that, there is abundant geological and genetic evidence supporting evolution (if you say that God created early life and let it go and evolve, see original argument).

I guess I'll fire the first shot then *bracing himself for a bombardment by hiding beneath a swivel chair with a helmet on*

To be honest, I think creationism because it sufficiently explains the beginning of life in its most basic and straightforward solution (I'm an Ockham's Razor thinker, you see). Furthermore, it seems paradoxical to me that people, as a whole, seek a purpose to life beyond themselves and without any kind of diety, it cheapens the values of life, death, and makes it impossible to fulfill any kind of meaning to life (that is, without making your own- which to me seems rather irrelevent because our aim is so inconsistant throughtout our lives to create a solid purpose on our own).

Woah. I'm sorry but most of the people who use Occam's razor use it to disprove Intelligent Design. It certainly doesn't dissprove evolution. And there is no meaning of life. Or any purpose.

I tried not to answer, but I'm so weak....can't stay away...

Woah. I'm sorry but most of the people who use Occam's razor use it to disprove Intelligent Design. It certainly doesn't dissprove evolution. And there is no meaning of life. Or any purpose.

I tried not to answer, but I'm so weak....can't stay away...

I agree. Occam's razor and creationism do not belong in the same sentence unless that sentence is "Occam's razor pwns creationism."

To be honest, I think creationism because it sufficiently explains the beginning of life in its most basic and straightforward solution (I'm an Ockham's Razor thinker, you see).
So having a big invisible dude who made everything that ever existed is a more simple solution than Darwin's? Hmm...well in that case, I do not believe in either evolution or creationism, but in the theory that the universe was created from the shit of giants and that the world will end when we are flushed.

I guess I'll fire the first shot then *bracing himself for a bombardment by hiding beneath a swivel chair with a helmet on*

To be honest, I think creationism because it sufficiently explains the beginning of life in its most basic and straightforward solution (I'm an Ockham's Razor thinker, you see). Furthermore, it seems paradoxical to me that people, as a whole, seek a purpose to life beyond themselves and without any kind of diety, it cheapens the values of life, death, and makes it impossible to fulfill any kind of meaning to life (that is, without making your own- which to me seems rather irrelevent because our aim is so inconsistant throughtout our lives to create a solid purpose on our own).

I do, however, believe in MICRO-evoloution (that is, the exchange of traits between animals, like how we get different breeds of dog). If you talk about Darwin and MACRO-evolution, then I do not believe in it.

As far as your first point goes, see my post. As for the bolded part of your post, I think this is irrelevant. This is merely stating that you believe in a God in order to find meaning in your life. There could still be a God who didn't create humans. Reasoning behind belief itself does not come into the evolution/creationism question.

Isn't Occam's Razor only for if there's equal evidence for each side? Therefore, Occam's Razor wouldn't even apply here, would it? I mean there's no evidence for ID or Creationism except for a 4000 year old book, and evolution has a geologic time scale, a fossil record and DNA evidence.

I'd like to make something clear.

Abiogenesis and evolution are not the same.

kthxbai.

Isn't Occam's Razor only for if there's equal evidence for each side? Therefore, Occam's Razor wouldn't even apply here, would it? I mean there's no evidence for ID or Creationism except for a 4000 year old book, and evolution has a geologic time scale, a fossil record and DNA evidence.

Dude evolution only has...

modern geology, modern genetics, modern biology, and the fossil record - that's like nothing!;)

Woah. I'm sorry but most of the people who use Occam's razor use it to disprove Intelligent Design. It certainly doesn't dissprove evolution. And there is no meaning of life. Or any purpose.

I tried not to answer, but I'm so weak....can't stay away...
While this may be true, the Razor only states that the most simple solutions to the problem must be chosen first for the answer (at least, to my understanding). When one says that it disproves creationism, it seems to me that creation is far more simple and elegant than evolution.

To answer the second part of the comment, I would like to simply pose a question, then leave with a cheap little quote. The question being: if you truly believed that there is no meaning to life, why are you still alive? Surely, if life is as futile as you make it to be, then why stay?

The quote being from Sir John Templeton, "Would it not be strange if a universe without purpose acidentally created humans who are so obsessed with purpose?"

I'm here, might as well make the best of it. And if it's always the simplest answer, then wouldn't that mean that everyone died from natural causes? I mean with murder you have to have a motive, a murder weapon, a muderer, etc, but with natural cause, you need none of those, making it simpler.

From your post I guess you're an American, and that's without even looking at your username...

First of all I scrolled through the site and have not seen the topic anywhere.. again i apologize no one compells u to answer

2nd of all Nadkor what is your fucking problem? It was just a simple question, do you have an obsession to blast people when you get an oppurtunity. Contary to what you and many other people here seem to think, Americans are not retarded, we have less intelligent people and intelligent people just like everyone else. If we were stupid, I doubt we'd be the worlds only superpower, have one of the best if not the best economy in the world and have most of the top colleges in the world (havard yale princeton).

PS: If I wanted a potatoe famine, a civil war for the last 500 million years, and unequal representation in parliment, I would definitely move to Ireland. When I do I'll be sure to give you a call :)

To answer the second part of the comment, I would like to simply pose a question, then leave with a cheap little quote. The question being: if you truly believed that there is no meaning to life, why are you still alive? Surely, if life is as futile as you make it to be, then why stay?"

Because I want to?:rolleyes: Actually, a simpler solution would be the product of giant shit, if you ask me. The god factor involved seven days, the giant shit theory only takes one shit, which would last a few hours for a giant, I suppose.

PS: If I wanted a potatoe famine, a civil war for the last 500 million years, and unequal representation in parliment, I would definitely move to Ireland. When I do I'll be sure to give you a call :)

Quayle ftw.

While this may be true, the Razor only states that the most simple solutions to the problem must be chosen first for the answer (at least, to my understanding). When one says that it disproves creationism, it seems to me that creation is far more simple and elegant than evolution.

To answer the second part of the comment, I would like to simply pose a question, then leave with a cheap little quote. The question being: if you truly believed that there is no meaning to life, why are you still alive? Surely, if life is as futile as you make it to be, then why stay?

The quote being from Sir John Templeton, "Would it not be strange if a universe without purpose acidentally created humans who are so obsessed with purpose?"

Note that my reference was to ID, not creationism. But in a sense, it applies to both. After all, as previously stated, there is evidence in support of evolution, as well as evidence that a God is not needed. Therefore, God is unnessacary, and is disproven via Occam's razor.

I'm not even going to get into the meaning of life. You may find it bizarre that life has no meaning, but I don't. Life is probably just some massive coincidence. You know, like the first cell was accidental, and life's just progressed from there. But we're never going to find an answer to that question.

EDIT: Additionally, just because there is no ultimate purpose to life does not mean that it isn't worth living. There are plenty of good things I can do for the world, even without believing in a divine purpose/meaning.

You know, like the first cell was accidental, and life's just progressed from there. But we're never going to find an answer to that question.

I'd doubt that. Considering the properties of elements and bonding, it's likely that it really wasn't accidental but happened because that's just how particles work. Though I'm not the best person to talk about abiogenesis.

I'd doubt that. Considering the properties of elements and bonding, it's likely that it really wasn't accidental but happened because that's just how particles work. Though I'm not the best person to talk about abiogenesis.

I think by accidental he meant without purpose. Either way, you're both getting the same point across.

EDIT: I used the wrong your. This is the first time I've done that in years.:( :( :(

I'd doubt that. Considering the properties of elements and bonding, it's likely that it really wasn't accidental but happened because that's just how particles work. Though I'm not the best person to talk about abiogenesis.

Well, it could be that. I'm not clear on the exact details, as I only have gr.10 science and a few weeks of 11th grade chemistry under my belt.

Every religion has its own cosmology which is beyond being proven or experienced. Science is proveable and Evolution currently is the best scientific theory on this issue.

I'd doubt that. Considering the properties of elements and bonding, it's likely that it really wasn't accidental but happened because that's just how particles work. Though I'm not the best person to talk about abiogenesis.

What do you mean by accidental? From the start of the universe, you could determine when and where the first cell would form by using the laws of physics. But does that make it any less accidental?

What do you mean by accidental? From the start of the universe, you could determine when and where the first cell would form by using the laws of physics. But does that make it any less accidental?

I disagree with this due to the Heisenberg equations.

To answer the second part of the comment, I would like to simply pose a question, then leave with a cheap little quote. The question being: if you truly believed that there is no meaning to life, why are you still alive? Surely, if life is as futile as you make it to be, then why stay?

The quote being from Sir John Templeton, "Would it not be strange if a universe without purpose acidentally created humans who are so obsessed with purpose?"

Well, see, you're assuming that we have free will and that our consciousness actually means anything. The 'free will' that we believe that we posess is simply the manifestation of the massive complexity of our brains. In the formation of complex biological responses to our surroundings, brains evolved to assess their own decisions. Of course, the amount of raw data being processed is so large that it inherently cannot be entirely comprehended by itself. We can understand how basic functions of our brains work, but not the 'why?' of the whole thing. We can perfectly predict the simple programming of a robot, the more complex biological programming of an ant is less, but still highly, predictable. Move higher up to our own brains - we can still reasonably predict responses to stimuli, such as recoiling from a hot surface, but the sheer volume of stimuli that affect the chemical reactions of the brain makes perfect prediction of the brain impossible by a brain of the same capacity. Ultimately, we are are perfectly predictable, given sufficient data and processing power.

As for your more philosophical question: I don't really care WHY I'm here, I am, and seeing as I can't predict myself, nor can any device that I'm aware of, I can treat my life as though I had free will, and define the purpose of my existence in terms of basic evolution - to preserve my species and further develop it. In the case of human, the most possible development is in terms of knowledge. As such, I'm pursuing a science career in order to improve our knowledge, such that others can build on it to define purpose in their lives. Because that's just what our brains happen to do.

I think by accidental he meant without purpose. Either way, you're both getting the same point across.

EDIT: I used the wrong your. This is the first time I've done that in years.:( :( :(

Yes, that's what SHE meant.

Note to all: TC shall now depart out of a concern for physical fitness, and will immediately cease referring to herself in the third person. Happy debating!

What do you mean by accidental? From the start of the universe, you could determine when and where the first cell would form by using the laws of physics. But does that make it any less accidental?

How is it an accident if it conforms to the laws of physics? It happened because of physics laws, not on its own accord. I don't know, as I said, I'm not really fluent in this. I also only have gr10 biology and am on gr11 chemistry.

edit: I guess TC meant accidental in reference to "purpose" in that case, I'd have to agree about the purpose of life.

2nd of all Nadkor what is your fucking problem? It was just a simple question, do you have an obsession to blast people when you get an oppurtunity.

An obsession? Friend, an obsession would be to continually do it.

I can't think of an occasion when I have ever 'blasted' somebody.

My point was how America seems to be embroiled in this debate; how many Evolution vs. Creationism threads do you see started by non-Americans?

Contary to what you and many other people here seem to think, Americans are not retarded, we have less intelligent people and intelligent people just like everyone else.
I'm fully aware of this.

PS: If I wanted a potatoe famine, a civil war for the last 500 million years, and unequal representation in parliment, I would definitely move to Ireland. When I do I'll be sure to give you a call :)
Good for you, but I live in a Northern Ireland with the developed worlds lowest crime rate (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2091-1785801,00.html), one of the best education systems in the world (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/isani1201.pdf), equal representation in Parliament, and ample food supplies.

if one is Christian, you must believe in creationism if not because you know why the flaw is? because then it would say suffering existed before adam and eve, then it would mean Jesus sacrifice is vain.

if one consists of pure logic, then evolution, even if the chance of that happening is llllllllllliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitttttttttttttttlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllleeeeeeeeee eeeeee.

How is it an accident if it conforms to the laws of physics? It happened because of physics laws, not on its own accord. I don't know, as I said, I'm not really fluent in this. I also only have gr10 biology and am on gr11 chemistry.

It kind of depends on your definition of accidental. Do you mean that it was intentional and the universe "wanted" it to happen. Was Fleming's discovery of penicillin an accident? According to your definition, it was not. The laws of physics dictated what Fleming would do, but it wasn't his intention to discover it.

Edit: Just saw your edit. Bah, humbug.

Most of the people who apply Occam's Razor don't really understand how it works. According to this web site (http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Occam.html), the Razor is the principle that "we should not multiply entities unnecessarily." This means that, if two separate entities explain an equal amount of data with no contradictions, the simpler explanation is the more useful one. It doesn't mean that the simpler theory always wins.

On one hand, we have a set of theories which work together to explain everything we know about biology, geology, and cosmology, using only one entity (natural principles). These theories have predictive power, meaning that we can use some of the data that we have, combined with the theory, to accurately predict what other data should be available. On the other hand, we have an idea (not, in the scientific sense, even a theory) which has no predictive power and which includes two entities (natural principles and an omnipotent deity). So what does Occam say about that?

My point was how America seems to be embroiled in this debate; how many Evolution vs. Creationism threads do you see started by non-Americans?


Quote:
Contary to what you and many other people here seem to think, Americans are not retarded, we have less intelligent people and intelligent people just like everyone else.

I'm fully aware of this.


Well then I seem to have interperted your words wrong, my apologies ... I spoke in anger after reading the "why I hate america so much thread" on page 5

It kind of depends on your definition of accidental. Do you mean that it was intentional and the universe "wanted" it to happen. Was Fleming's discovery of penicillin an accident? According to your definition, it was not. The laws of physics dictated what Fleming would do, but it wasn't his intention to discover it.

Edit: Just saw your edit. Bah, humbug.

Yeah, I'd agree it is subjective on the definition of accidental. Anyway, I think we drew out that issue far too much for being on the same side (I think?);)

I think we drew out that issue far too much for being on the same side (I think?);)

Speak for yourself! I am firmly on the insane side. :)

While this may be true, the Razor only states that the most simple solutions to the problem must be chosen first for the answer (at least, to my understanding). When one says that it disproves creationism, it seems to me that creation is far more simple and elegant than evolution.

To answer the second part of the comment, I would like to simply pose a question, then leave with a cheap little quote. The question being: if you truly believed that there is no meaning to life, why are you still alive? Surely, if life is as futile as you make it to be, then why stay?

The quote being from Sir John Templeton, "Would it not be strange if a universe without purpose acidentally created humans who are so obsessed with purpose?"

Almost everybody is confused by what Occam's Razor means; it does not mean that the most simple explaination is the correct one. It means that the explaination that requires the fewest assumptions is the correct one. And using this definition (mixed with the piles of evidence) make evolution the only reasonable explaination.

For meaning of life; I don't need some external being to give me a meaning. I have set my path and identified my goals and I am pursuing them. Even if there is some being out there with a plan for me, it is irrelevant if it doesn't fit with my plans. And how does this make my life futile? I have a goal and I work for it.

For the Templeton quote, of course we have purpose. All animals have evolved a desire to reproduce, eat, and protect themselves; all of these are purposes. The more intelligent the animal more ability it has to extrapolate off of these and create new purposes. This is what we have done and we have mastered it.

Yeah, I'd agree it is subjective on the definition of accidental. Anyway, I think we drew out that issue far too much for being on the same side (I think?);)
Yep. Now the creationists will cite this as two top biologists disagreeing on evolution. :p

you know what i wonder? IF evolution is right, how can something come out of nothing, because everything has a beggining, and you cant begin out of nothing.

My point was how America seems to be embroiled in this debate; how many Evolution vs. Creationism threads do you see started by non-Americans?


Quote:
Contary to what you and many other people here seem to think, Americans are not retarded, we have less intelligent people and intelligent people just like everyone else.

I'm fully aware of this.


Well then I seem to have interperted your words wrong, my apologies ... I spoke in anger after reading the "why I hate america so much thread" on page 5

Fair enough :)

did you know that evolution does MANT assumptions?

you know what i wonder? IF evolution is right, how can something come out of nothing, because everything has a beggining, and you cant begin out of nothing.
Surely this would apply equally to Creationism?

For your answer for Evolution, look into Abiogenesis.

I'd doubt that. Considering the properties of elements and bonding, it's likely that it really wasn't accidental but happened because that's just how particles work. Though I'm not the best person to talk about abiogenesis.

Technically, nothing is accidental since the term "accident" requires a reverse of "intentional." Since nothing is intentional nothing is accidental.

It seems to me that I will make no grounds, despite whatever arguments I may make, so I will, I guess step down for the moment.

Before I go, just one more statement: After examining all of the evidence for and against evolution, and I mean the better part of a year or two, what I've read and studied had simply lead me to believe that there is little, if any evidence for evolution. Call me crazy and a zealous and fanatic fundamentalist if you will, but after doing my own research into the matter (with readings from Darwin, Michael J. Behe, Ernst Mayr and Lee Strobel), I've just simply come to the conclusion that evolution requires the burden of proof instead of evolution.

Thats all I have to say... Fare well, and hopefully you folks will have a *clean* debate (though I have my doubts).

it wouldnt because christians believe God existed since like...forever. and that God is not in the realm of time and space

did you know that evolution does MANT assumptions?
MANT? WTF does "mant" mean?

I belive in Evolution because it has far more evidence then creationism. Then again I'm also one of those lunatics who belives there's life on other planets.

your opinion is yours, so does mine

MANT? WTF does "mant" mean?

A mix between many and want, perhaps?

ooops, many, excuse my mistake

it wouldnt because christians believe God existed since like...forever. and that God is not in the realm of time and space

Time and space are two seperate diminsions

exactly, BOTH space and time

Just because we don't take things with no proof supporting them into acount doesn't mean our entire argument is assumptions.

but you said realm it would be realms. And it's not possible to not exist out of the 3rd and 4th diminsions.

yup, you are right.

but christians believe God is in no dimension, that is my point.

it is impossible to understand, because God is infinite according to christians

Time and space are two seperate diminsions

Time is an arbitrary dimension created by the human mind. Time is defined by motion, defined by distance. Its meaningless.

ok...altho he could exist within both and ummm....wait I forgot the word but have like a phase clock or travel between universes (even tho that theory isn't proven yet)

you know what i wonder? IF evolution is right, how can something come out of nothing, because everything has a beggining, and you cant begin out of nothing.

firstly, it doesn't matter as that falls outside the scope of evolutionary theory. evolution starts up as soon as you have self-reproducing entities with imperfect copying mechanism and differential reproductive success.

secondly, there wasn't exactly 'nothing' when life kicked off.

thirdly, the idea that there is a problem with something coming from nothing seems to run into a tiny bit of a contradiction with the idea of creation ex nihilo.

It seems to me that I will make no grounds, despite whatever arguments I may make, so I will, I guess step down for the moment.

Before I go, just one more statement: After examining all of the evidence for and against evolution, and I mean the better part of a year or two, what I've read and studied had simply lead me to believe that there is little, if any evidence for evolution. Call me crazy and a zealous and fanatic fundamentalist if you will, but after doing my own research into the matter (with readings from Darwin, Michael J. Behe, Ernst Mayr and Lee Strobel), I've just simply come to the conclusion that evolution requires the burden of proof instead of evolution.

Thats all I have to say... Fare well, and hopefully you folks will have a *clean* debate (though I have my doubts).

Would you care to elaborate? Evolution only requires the assumption that microevolution over enough generations will cause macroevolution and since we have observed new species evolve it barely even requires an assumption. Creationism requires the assumption that there is something inexplicable that explains away all of the evidence for evolution and it requires the assumption that there is some "thing" out there with amazing powers (that are likely supernatural, something inherently impossible through a scientific perspective) and that among them is the ability to create and design life. And does this being create new species periodically? How often does it do this? Why does it do this in a sort of sequential way rather than just create something totally new everytime it comes to Earth (or however it does this)?

now did you get it?

Time is an arbitrary dimension created by the human mind. Time is defined by motion, defined by distance. Its meaningless.

So how would you explain C? (the speed of light[the distance light travels in one Earth year])?

oops, i forgot Big Bang theory is a whole another different thing and doesnt belong to biology

I've just simply come to the conclusion that evolution requires the burden of proof instead of evolution.Sure it does. Creationism just isn't the default option that one would fall back on in such a case.

oops, i forgot Big Bang theory is a whole another different thing and doesnt belong to biology

Altho some ppl belive that our universe started outta notthin. But those of us who are smarter belive in the "Big Crunch"

Good for you, but I live in a Northern Ireland with the developed worlds lowest crime rate (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2091-1785801,00.html), one of the best education systems in the world (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/isani1201.pdf), equal representation in Parliament, and ample food supplies.
*cough IRA cough*

Face it people! we came from monkeys!
If you disagree, look at those bones of monkeys turning into humans in africa.
I heard AIDS came from monkeys, also.
What if it wasn't blood contact?

http://www.stcynic.com/blog/archives/2005/10/behe_disproves_irreducible_com.php

Anyone who listens to Behe is a moron. He disproves his own points, then ignores it.

EDIT: IEV, common ancestors of monkeys, not monkeys. And people wonder why Creationist think that evolution says we evolved from monkeys.

Or the string theory but w/e you wish

~snip~ Americans are not retarded, we have less intelligent people and intelligent people just like everyone else. ~snip~
I'm American, and, yes, the majority of the population is stupid. And, if you're very strictly Christian, surely you can't believe that a loving God will send 67% of the population (that is non-Christian) to hell. I personally believe in evolution, and am not sure what religion I am. I guess a mixture. Anyways, what do I know, I'm just a newbie, right? :rolleyes:

you are confusing speed of life and a light year. speed of light is about 300.000km per second, light year is , i forgot, i think it was like 4 quadrillion or trillion which is the distand light travels in a year.

I guess I'll fire the first shot then *bracing himself for a bombardment by hiding beneath a swivel chair with a helmet on*Well since you asked for it..

To be honest, I think creationism because it sufficiently explains the beginning of life in its most basic and straightforward solution (I'm an Ockham's Razor thinker, you see).You are most certainly not Ockham incarnate, but it does seem you've completely failed to grasp what Occam's Razor is all about.

Creationism/ID does not 'sufficiently explain' life, for the very simple reason that it utterly fails to address the question. You seem to want to know Why there is life. Evolutions explains How, not why. There is quite a difference.

If someone asks me how all the lifeforms came about, and I answer "Dog did it", does that honestly make you any wiser? What if I answer " God", "2+2", "x" or "Snargleblurp"?

Occam's Razor is about examining a proposed explanation, to see if it explains anything, and if it is the simplest proposed explanation. If a proposed explanation fails either of those criteria, they are "shaved off" by the Razor.

The theories of evolution does indeed explain the diversity of life. Not that each & every instance of life is worked out in detail, but it does offer what seems to be a viable, factual, evidence-backed explanation. It does not introduce any "unknowables" that cannot be tested for (such as "God", "Fnyrgle Orph" or "Angle Dust"). So while the theories may be incredibly complex, they are the simplest ones we know of. And while they may be slightly mindboggling, they don't actually introduce inexplicable complications.

God, on the other hand, can't be verified. Noone can demonstrate God exists. Noone can explain how God could have created the diverse lifeforms we are surrounded by, nor can it ever be examined how. So what it all boils down to, is that this is every bit as meaningful an explanation as "This is Taboo" is. It explains nothing, and stops all further inquiry. As such, the Razor will kill it.

Furthermore, it seems paradoxical to me that people, as a whole, seek a purpose to life beyond themselves and without any kind of diety, it cheapens the values of life, death, and makes it impossible to fulfill any kind of meaning to life (that is, without making your own- which to me seems rather irrelevent because our aim is so inconsistant throughtout our lives to create a solid purpose on our own).And you're more than welcome to be perplexed by that. It won't stop me from caring about the world I live in, the people that inhabit & will inherit it, or from suspecting that you cannot appreciate life.

See while you can't appreciate life without believing that it won't one day end, I can. It makes it much, much more valuable to me, to know that it won't last. And it makes me seriously question whether you are too self-absorbed to realise that the world doesn't revolve around your ego. Still, I guess there's nothing wrong with hightening self-rightiousness to an artform.I do, however, believe in MICRO-evoloution (that is, the exchange of traits between animals, like how we get different breeds of dog). If you talk about Darwin and MACRO-evolution, then I do not believe in it.If you believe one to be true, on what grounds do you dismiss the other?
Is it simply because it scares you, or is it because you can't wrap your mind around the concept that small constant change eventually leads to large over-all changes?

Face it people! we came from monkeys!
If you disagree, look at those bones of monkeys turning into humans in africa.
I heard AIDS came from monkeys, also.
What if it wasn't blood contact?

Not monkeys no but a similar ancestor to the monkey. We actually came from P. Bosei

look, AIDS infects monkeys just because we are biologically similar. just because something looks alike doesnt mean it is proof.

you are confusing speed of life and a light year. speed of light is about 300.000km per second, light year is , i forgot, i think it was like 4 quadrillion or trillion which is the distand light travels in a year.

W/E point of the matter is that time is the 4th diminsion not something that Humans just thought up and said existed like GOD

look, AIDS infects monkeys just because we are biologically similar. just because something looks alike doesnt mean it is proof.

it's a sad fact of life how little people actually know about evolution. I mean, modern day genetics obviously doesn't matter either when determing a common ancestor.

Anyone who listens to Behe is a moron. He disproves his own points, then ignores it.

but it's sort of cute that he thinks telling the future by looking at the motion of the stars is a scientific project

oh, creationism does explain how, by God, who is allpowerful, knowsall, and is everywhere, and can do anything(but if proof is what people want, you are right, there is no proof.)

but it's sort of cute that he thinks telling the future by looking at the motion of the stars is a scientific project

OMFG He thinks Astrology and similar crap like that is SCIENCE! :O No astronomy is tho

f you believe one to be true, on what grounds do you dismiss the other?
Is it simply because it scares you, or is it because you can't wrap your mind around the concept that small constant change eventually leads to large over-all changes?

i've never understood this either. it's as if they are declaring "well, sure if you pile up some dirt you could make a hill. but it simply could never be mountain sized."

W/E point of the matter is that time is the 4th diminsion not something that Humans just thought up and said existed like GOD

I fail to see your point. Because we use a system of MEASUREment we made up to MEASURE something is proof we didn't make it up?

oh, creationism does explain how, by God, who is allpowerful, knowsall, and is everywhere, and can do anything(but if proof is what people want, you are right, there is no proof.)

Your contradicting yourself if god can do anything then he can make bacteria out of nothing and make sure it evolves

Your contradicting yourself if god can do anything then he can make bacteria out of nothing and make sure it evolves

He said they had an explanation. He didn't say it was good or logical.

I fail to see your point. Because we use a system of MEASUREment we made up to MEASURE something is proof we didn't make it up?

How do you know that god wasn't something someone made up just cause he didn't like not knowing where we came from and where we're gonna go when we die?

firstly, it doesn't matter as that falls outside the scope of evolutionary theory. evolution starts up as soon as you have self-reproducing entities with imperfect copying mechanism and differential reproductive success.

secondly, there wasn't exactly 'nothing' when life kicked off.

thirdly, the idea that there is a problem with something coming from nothing seems to run into a tiny bit of a contradiction with the idea of creation ex nihilo.

http://img376.imageshack.us/img376/7967/abiogenesis3ao.gif (http://imageshack.us)

He said they had an explanation. He didn't say it was good or logical.

Ok I'll agree with you there but he's still contradicting himself/herself

off subject but how many post til it counts me as a member?

How do you know that god wasn't something someone made up just cause he didn't like not knowing where we came from and where we're gonna go when we die?

I agree with you, god was made up. But I still fail to see why you were trying to prove time isn't a man-made concept.

You're right it may be but I chose not to accept that idea

I agree with you, god was made up. But I still fail to see why you were trying to prove time isn't a man-made concept.

Time is part of the spacetime continuum that can be measured.

Time is part of the spacetime continuum that can be measured.

Ok and your not helping me any.

I am pretty new here and I see that one of my first posts will be a debate. I believe in Creationism. Really Evolution is a bunch of bull and I don't know how you could believe in it unless you are incredubly stupid or have gone to church no more than 3 times in your life......

If I believed in Evolution then:

- I would be depressed for there is no reason for life, you are born and then die and just lay in a coffin dead, nothing happens. Ooooh, something to look forward to. :rolleyes:

- My ancestors were monkeys, rats, frogs, and simple cells? Oh really. :rolleyes:

- Like said before, if I "evolved" then there would be no purpose to life and I would just be depressed, sad, bored, immoral, and worried to die.

- Last, but not least, I would be stupid.

In Creationism there is an explanation of where you come from and where you will go when you die. There is an explanation of how the earth appeared and the rest of the universe. There is an explanation for everything.

I guess I'll fire the first shot then *bracing himself for a bombardment by hiding beneath a swivel chair with a helmet on*

To be honest, I think creationism because it sufficiently explains the beginning of life in its most basic and straightforward solution (I'm an Ockham's Razor thinker, you see). Furthermore, it seems paradoxical to me that people, as a whole, seek a purpose to life beyond themselves and without any kind of diety, it cheapens the values of life, death, and makes it impossible to fulfill any kind of meaning to life (that is, without making your own- which to me seems rather irrelevent because our aim is so inconsistant throughtout our lives to create a solid purpose on our own).

I do, however, believe in MICRO-evoloution (that is, the exchange of traits between animals, like how we get different breeds of dog). If you talk about Darwin and MACRO-evolution, then I do not believe in it.
holy crap! basically just take everything he said and that's what i believe.

man... saved me some time!

I am pretty new here and I see that one of my first posts will be a debate. I believe in Creationism. Really Evolution is a bunch of bull and I don't know how you could believe in it unless you are incredubly stupid or have gone to church no more than 3 times in your life......

If I believed in Evolution then:

- I would be depressed for there is no reason for life, you are born and then die and just lay in a coffin dead, nothing happens. Ooooh, something to look forward to. :rolleyes:

- My ancestors were monkeys, rats, frogs, and simple cells? Oh really. :rolleyes:

- Like said before, if I "evolved" then there would be no purpose to life and I would just be depressed, sad, bored, immoral, and worried to die.

- Last, but not least, I would be stupid.

In Creationism there is an explanation of where you come from and where you will go when you die. There is an explanation of how the earth appeared and the rest of the universe. There is an explanation for everything.

Accept it or not its the truth and I've only been to church once in my life. and God's your reason for life not being depressing. God is my reason for life being depressing

And how is God making your life depressing, well at least you are one of few that believe in him....

woops sry ppl just ment to say accept it or not. I guess that's how strongly I feel about this subject. And Evolution still has more proof the Creationism

how

So, you believe evolution is wrong because you would be depressed if it was right? I guess a large number of wars never happened either.

And how is God making your life depressing, well at least you are one of few that believe in him....

He keeps toying with me. And all his really religious followers keep trying to get me to be extremely religious. but thats more them then him

"I would be depressed if that was true" is not a good argument against something. Life is depressing sometimes, deal with it.

EDIT: This is in response to the "EVOLUTION IS FALSE SINCE IT MAKES ME SAD! HURRRR!" poeple.

So, you believe evolution is wrong because you would be depressed if it was right? I guess a large number of wars never happened either.


Not totally depressed but I would think what is the purpose of life, why the hell am I here?

So, you believe evolution is wrong because you would be depressed if it was right? I guess a large number of wars never happened either.

I did hear one dude say the Holocaust is a conspiracy theory

Not totally depressed but I would think what is the purpose of life, why the hell am I here?
Once again, you assume there's a reason we're here.

There is no purpose to life. You have to find one. Raise a family, start a company, help a charity, play video games.

Not totally depressed but I would think what is the purpose of life, why the hell am I here?

What does the purpose of life have to do with evoultion/creationism?

He keeps toying with me. And all his really religious followers keep trying to get me to be extremely religious. but thats more them then him


I see your point. As long as you believe in God and stay close to his rules you are pretty good. Believe me, I believe but I don't go to church everyweek and go around saying praise him, that is kind of crazy.

I am pretty new here and I see that one of my first posts will be a debate. I believe in Creationism. Really Evolution is a bunch of bull and I don't know how you could believe in it unless you are incredubly stupid or have gone to church no more than 3 times in your life......

If I believed in Evolution then:

- I would be depressed for there is no reason for life, you are born and then die and just lay in a coffin dead, nothing happens. Ooooh, something to look forward to. :rolleyes:

- My ancestors were monkeys, rats, frogs, and simple cells? Oh really. :rolleyes:

- Like said before, if I "evolved" then there would be no purpose to life and I would just be depressed, sad, bored, immoral, and worried to die.

- Last, but not least, I would be stupid.

In Creationism there is an explanation of where you come from and where you will go when you die. There is an explanation of how the earth appeared and the rest of the universe. There is an explanation for everything.
If you need Creationism to give your life a meaning, I understand why you would be depressed.

Exactly but im amased you didn't ask how hes toyin w/ me

Wow, you people really don't believe there is a purpose?

How hopeless, I would hate to be you.:(

If you need Creationism to give your life a meaning, I understand why you would be depressed.

SHON DU BIST EING GRUSS...person and dud you ROCK

Exactly but im amased you didn't ask how hes toyin w/ me


Well that is really none of my business.;)

If you people knew anything then you would know that evolution has nothing to do with how the first living thing was created, only what happened after that. Darwin himself went to a university of theology. Stop debating non-issues. Creationism and Evolution deal with two different subjects. You can't choose one over the other if they deal with two different subjects.

SHON DU BIST EING GRUSS...person and dud you ROCKWhat? :confused:

Wow, you people really don't believe there is a purpose?

How hopeless, I would hate to be you.:(

I belive thers a purpose but I don't belive it has anything to do w/ Evolution/Creationism

I am pretty new here and I see that one of my first posts will be a debate. I believe in Creationism. Really Evolution is a bunch of bull and I don't know how you could believe in it unless you are incredubly stupid or have gone to church no more than 3 times in your life......

If I believed in Evolution then:

- I would be depressed for there is no reason for life, you are born and then die and just lay in a coffin dead, nothing happens. Ooooh, something to look forward to. :rolleyes:

- My ancestors were monkeys, rats, frogs, and simple cells? Oh really. :rolleyes:

- Like said before, if I "evolved" then there would be no purpose to life and I would just be depressed, sad, bored, immoral, and worried to die.

- Last, but not least, I would be stupid.

In Creationism there is an explanation of where you come from and where you will go when you die. There is an explanation of how the earth appeared and the rest of the universe. There is an explanation for everything.

In the beginning there was the great turtle Gromagosh who existed outside of space and time. As eternities passed he decided he needed creations to glorify him and created the universe complete with the Earth above his shell. He breathed upon the Earth and gave it life and upon this Earth he created a life form in his own image: turtles. And he created thousands of species of turtles to reflect the various aspects of his infinite being. With time he decided that his creations needed stewards and for this he created humans. He gave these beings intelligence so that they could better serve their purpose; but they were proud and in rebellion turned away from their sacred charge and created new gods in their own image. There were even those who commited the ultimate blasphemy of killing turtles. But there are those who see the truth and accept their sacred charge as the glorifiers of turtles. These pious individuals were travel to the underside of Gromagosh's shell upon their death to live for eternity in perfect bliss along with all of the turtles. Those who turned their back on their creator will have their souls devoured upon their death.

There, I explained what REALLY happened; complete with explainations as to where we came from, what happens after death, and why we are here. I bet you all feel very stupid.

No, there's no purpose. At least, we're not born with one, or given one by some magical sky-grandpa. You make your own purpose. Or, you take comfort in someone else's prepackaged purpose: read this book, give us your money, kill this infidel and you will be complete!

If you people knew anything then you would know that evolution has nothing to do with how the first living thing was created, only what happened after that. Darwin himself went to a university of theology. Stop debating non-issues. Creationism and Evolution deal with two different subjects. You can't choose one over the other if they deal with two different subjects.

Oh just couse you disagree doesn't mean you gotta be a jerk, even if it is the truth

What? :confused:
Just read the English part, German's not my best language

In the beginning there was the great turtle Gromagosh who existed outside of space and time. As eternities passed he decided he needed creations to glorify him and created the universe complete with the Earth above his shell. He breathed upon the Earth and gave it life and upon this Earth he created a life form in his own image: turtles. And he created thousands of species of turtles to reflect the various aspects of his infinite being. With time he decided that his creations needed stewards and for this he created humans. He gave these beings intelligence so that they could better serve their purpose; but they were proud and in rebellion turned away from their sacred charge and created new gods in their own image. There were even those who commited the ultimate blasphemy of killing turtles. But there are those who see the truth and accept their sacred charge as the glorifiers of turtles. These pious individuals were travel to the underside of Gromagosh's shell upon their death to live for eternity in perfect bliss along with all of the turtles. Those who turned their back on their creator will have their souls devoured upon their death.

There, I explained what REALLY happened; complete with explainations as to where we came from, what happens after death, and why we are here. I bet you all feel very stupid.

WOW I wish I could BS that well

No, there's no purpose. At least, we're not born with one, or given one by some magical sky-grandpa. You make your own purpose. Or, you take comfort in someone else's prepackaged purpose: read this book, give us your money, kill this infidel and you will be complete!

still it has notthin to do w/ our current subject

Come on ppl I've hit the refresh button way too many times

Come on ppl I've hit the refresh button way too many times
Ok. What did you try to say in German a page back?

as USMC leathernecks pointed out, you're trying to compare apples and oranges.

theory of evolution = scientific, falsifiable, in the natural realm of testablility; attepmts to explain the start of life
creationism = theological, non-falsifiable (doesn't mean "bad" or "stupid"; just not scientific), in the relm of supernatural; attempts to explain the start of existence

you ask people to compare a falsifiable concept with a mostly unrelated unfalsifiable one, and get ticked when creationists can't prove it?! :headbang:

I Belive it was: LOVELY, YOUR A GREAT...

as USMC leathernecks pointed out, you're trying to compare apples and oranges.

theory of evolution = scientific, falsifiable, in the natural realm of testablility; attepmts to explain the start of life
creationism = theological, non-falsifiable (doesn't mean "bad" or "stupid"; just not scientific), in the relm of supernatural; attempts to explain the start of existence

you ask people to compare a falsifiable concept with a mostly unrelated unfalsifiable one, and get ticked when creationists can't prove it?! :headbang:

I don't get ticked I get GLAD

Actually, it's creationists who force that comparison. In science, cosmology, geology, and biology are separate fields (which nonetheless support one another). In most religions, the origin of the universe, the planet, and life are rolled into a single story. Therefore, the arguments against science hit all three disciplines simultaneously.

Ok. What did you try to say in German a page back?

I've been out of Germany for a while and I failed my German class so...yeah I can't speak it too well

I Belive it was: LOVELY, YOUR A GREAT...Ah. No offence, but German really isn't your best language :p

I don't get ticked I get GLAD
ah, very well then.

you take joy when people don't win something they can't win, by definition

Ah. No offence, but German really isn't your best language :p

ppl always say not to get offended when tellin the truth...I wonder why?

Actually, it's creationists who force that comparison. In science, cosmology, geology, and biology are separate fields (which nonetheless support one another). In most religions, the origin of the universe, the planet, and life are rolled into a single story. Therefore, the arguments against science hit all three disciplines simultaneously.

:eek: HOW DARE YOU!!!!! you forgot the best science of all!

and please, don't be so childish as to make a snide comment about the connotation of "can't" other than what i meant and you all know i meant

ah, very well then.

you take joy when people don't win something they can't win, by definition

As you command your royal PITA

Wow lottsa posteses if this is #10506846

Which one did I miss? I consider evolution a facet of biology.

It is but you said cosmology so you had to include Astronomy

wow this is really slow i just took out trash

Fair enough.

Fair enough.

YAY I WIN oh well no borg but :borg: neway

wow I feel so childish right now

and please, don't be so childish as to make a snide comment about the connotation of "can't" other than what i meant and you all know i meant

Ok....:confused:

I am pretty new here and I see that one of my first posts will be a debate. I believe in Creationism. Really Evolution is a bunch of bull and I don't know how you could believe in it unless you are incredubly stupid or have gone to church no more than 3 times in your life......OK, but let's assume for a moment that I am incredibly stupid, and can't see what is so obviously wrong with the ToE. Care explain, instead of making fun of my assumed ignorance?

If I believed in Evolution then:

- I would be depressed for there is no reason for life, you are born and then die and just lay in a coffin dead, nothing happens. Ooooh, something to look forward to. :rolleyes: If I believed in creation, I'd both be depressed & get myself killed. When life is but a fleeting, bothersome & often painful 'commercial break', what would be the point of living it?
To make matters worse, I've tried staring at a wall for a couple of hours. It was boring in the extreme. Try to imagine eternity for a moment. Even drunken, coked up sex would be incredibly boring after a couple of gazillion repetitions. I'd much rather die than live eternally. Every possible experience would be devoid of meaning, fun & anything else, in such an extstence. It'd be Hell.
- My ancestors were monkeys, rats, frogs, and simple cells? Oh really. :rolleyes: My creator made it possible for me to have deformed babies. My creator made sure I'd be able to experience the death of my children, with a bit of bad luck. My creator made me with a bloody tail! My creator made sure I'd choke on stuff on a regular basis, and probably need surgery at least once in my life, because my body is such an ill-concieved, semi-deficient Sunday job.

- Like said before, if I "evolved" then there would be no purpose to life and I would just be depressed, sad, bored, immoral, and worried to die.If I was created, there'd be no point to life. There'd be no point to ethics either, as my buddy Jesus would forgive me for raping & eating your wife & children. If I was created, Life would be nothing but the pointless, sad & boring wait to get to the afterlife. There would be no incentive to better myself, help my peers or strive for the betterment of mankind & the world we live on. My free will would at most be a source of confusion & damnation, instead of ideas, love & hope.

- Last, but not least, I would be stupid.Last but not least, I'd be reduced to meaninglessness.

In Creationism there is an explanation of where you come from and where you will go when you die. There is an explanation of how the earth appeared and the rest of the universe. There is an explanation for everything.Creationism doesn't explain where anyone comes from. A random one-word constallation of letters is no explanation, it's a taboo.
It doesn't explain how the universe came about either. It just proclaims it did, just like it proclaims that you & I are here.
And while religion does explain what happens after death, only a couple of them offers something I'd be interested in. Christianity isn't one of those.

Careful what you wish for, because eternity would surely suck beyond measure.

Ok byebye ppl tis waaaaaaaayyyyyyy tooooo SLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWW

OK, but let's assume for a moment that I am incredibly stupid, and can't see what is so obviously wrong with the ToE. Care explain, instead of making fun of my assumed ignorance?

If I believed in creation, I'd both be depressed & get myself killed. When life is but a fleeting, bothersome & often painful 'commercial break', what would be the point of living it?
To make matters worse, I've tried staring at a wall for a couple of hours. It was boring in the extreme. Try to imagine eternity for a moment. Even drunken, coked up sex would be incredibly boring after a couple of gazillion repetitions. I'd much rather die than live eternally. Every possible experience would be devoid of meaning, fun & anything else, in such an extstence. It'd be Hell.
My creator made it possible for me to have deformed babies. My creator made sure I'd be able to experience the death of my children, with a bit of bad luck. My creator made me with a bloody tail! My creator made sure I'd choke on stuff on a regular basis, and probably need surgery at least once in my life, because my body is such an ill-concieved, semi-deficient Sunday job.

If I was created, there'd be no point to life. There'd be no point to ethics either, as my buddy Jesus would forgive me for raping & eating your wife & children. If I was created, Life would be nothing but the pointless, sad & boring wait to get to the afterlife. There would be no incentive to better myself, help my peers or strive for the betterment of mankind & the world we live on. My free will would at most be a source of confusion & damnation, instead of ideas, love & hope.

Last but not least, I'd be reduced to meaninglessness.

Creationism doesn't explain where anyone comes from. A random one-word constallation of letters is no explanation, it's a taboo.
It doesn't explain how the universe came about either. It just proclaims it did, just like it proclaims that you & I are here.
And while religion does explain what happens after death, only a couple of them offers something I'd be interested in. Christianity isn't one of those.

Careful what you wish for, because eternity would surely suck beyond measure.

Actually religion only gives an idea as too what happens after death. neither the afterlife nor reincarntaion have been proven

we need some good polls, like this.....Wuts better PB & J or Tuna? come on people now thats worth voting for!!!!!!

Tuna can be good, but PB&J is always good. My vote goes to PB&J.

Actually religion only gives an idea as too what happens after death. neither the afterlife nor reincarntaion have been provenEh.. I never claimed any of the fantasy stuff was real, did I? I just said it'd suck to "live" eternally.

Eh.. I never claimed any of the fantasy stuff was real, did I? I just said it'd suck to "live" eternally.

No but you never disclaimed it and I said I was leaving! homophobe!

we need some good polls, like this.....Wuts better PB & J or Tuna? come on people now thats worth voting for!!!!!!

I say tuna PB&J SUX in my opinion

The US is the only place where creationism has any power.

In fact, I only heard about it on these boards...

...then american news started talking about it.

Anyone who hasn't done a simple genetics test will not understand the relevance of evolution. Evolution can be used to predict stuff in short-term. Yes, it's probably more genetics but... whatever.

I don't know how you could believe in it [evolution] unless you are incredubly stupid

Quoted for additional irony.

I believe in the one that is science. People can live in their fantasy worlds if they like, but I cannot. I will say no more.

I believe in the one that is science. I will say no more. People can live in their fantasy worlds if they like, but I cannot.


67 keystrokes after "I will say no more.", maybe wanna put that at the end?

67 keystrokes after "I will say no more.", maybe wanna put that at the end?

If you like. Yes, I know this is saying more. I meant more on that particular subject, not in general!

A few points to keep in mind:
- Evolution and Creationism are, scientifically speaking, THEORIES.
- I love what Not So Bad Jerk Face said at the beginning. It was well thought out, and he was perfectly sensible in the way that he portrayed his views.
- You should all post like him, and be less ignorant of just HOW IGNORANT the way that you are addressing eachother sounds.

A few points to keep in mind:
- Evolution and Creationism are, scientifically speaking, THEORIES.
- I love what Not So Bad Jerk Face said at the beginning. It was well thought out, and he was perfectly sensible in the way that he portrayed his views.
- You should all post like him, and be less ignorant of just HOW IGNORANT the way that you are addressing eachother sounds.
Actually you are wrong are wrong. Scientifically speaking creationism isn't a theory, because it doesn't follow any scientific principles.

Here are my beliefs: We were created by God over billions of years. He was the "catalyst"/cause for the Big Bang, Gradual Evolution, and the like.

I hate to break it to you, but evolution is actually less scientific than creationism. If you actually study, in depth the bases and the whole of the Theory of Evolution, and keep in mind want real SCIENCE is (anything that can be observed, measured, and repeated), you will see, as I did, that evolution doesn't make much sense, and has many different holes in it, along with no truly affirming evidence. I'm not saying that Creationism is scientifically provable, because the beginnings of the world, and life, cannot be observe, measure, or repeated. Neither you nor I was there, and we are not God, so we cannot repeat it.

Actually you are wrong are wrong. Scientifically speaking creationism isn't a theory, because it doesn't follow any scientific principles.

Additionally, for something to be a theory, it must be capable of being disproven. Creationism cannot be disproven, so it's not a scientific theory.

I hate to break it to you, but evolution is actually less scientific than creationism.Really? Evolution would be disproven if we find a fossilized bunny the age of an apatosaurus. How would Creationism be disproven?

I hate to break it to you, but evolution is actually less scientific than creationism. If you actually study, in depth the bases and the whole of the Theory of Evolution, and keep in mind want real SCIENCE is (anything that can be observed, measured, and repeated), you will see, as I did, that evolution doesn't make much sense, and has many different holes in it, along with no truly affirming evidence. I'm not saying that Creationism is scientifically provable, because the beginnings of the world, and life, cannot be observe, measure, or repeated. Neither you nor I was there, and we are not God, so we cannot repeat it.

Evolution makes perfect sense and it has no holes. Name one hole in evolution, if you like. Evolution can be observed, measured, and repeated. Numerous experiments have been done that reinforced the concept of evolution, and bacterial and viral micro-evolution is extremely common. That's how virii and bacteria adapt -- through evolution. You can prove this to yourself by taking less medicine than is required when you are sick, and watching the pathogen adapt to the medicine you are taking. Evolutions has tons upon tons of affirming evidence.

Evolution makes perfect sense and it has no holes. Name one hole in evolution, if you like. Evolution can be observed, measured, and repeated. Numerous experiments have been done that reinforced the concept of evolution, and bacterial and viral micro-evolution is extremely common. That's how virii and bacteria adapt -- through evolution. You can prove this to yourself by taking less medicine than is required when you are sick, and watching the pathogen adapt to the medicine you are taking. Evolutions has tons upon fof affirming evidence.

You are talking About Micro Evolution. That is true. That happens every day. But If A cold Virus Adapts to Medicine, The cold you have doesn't make A new species, Now does it?


Micro Evolution is true- The Macro is BS. You wanted A hole? Well. This is for Support of the Flood. In Arizona I think it is, on the Mesas you can find fossils of A squid thing. ALL of them are facing the same Direction. Unless Squid Suddenly Started to Naturally Line Up to Die, the fact that they face the same direction supports A fast, sudden flow of water = Noahs Flood. Disproves Evolution.

While I'm at it, I'll diss Big Bang too. If You use common sense, you can understand this. The Big Bang theory Says that the Universe was created by A dot that was spinning around SOOOO fast that it exploded and made the Galaxy. If you ask me, No matter how fast you spin, you won;t explode and make an Galaxy.

The Bible is pretty much the History of Man up to a certain date of course.


The Big Bang - Evolution Combo is A Bucketload of Shit.


Yuou Can Flame Me Now

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

And for more general stuff, http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html

You are talking About Micro Evolution. That is true. That happens every day. But If A cold Virus Adapts to Medicine, The cold you have doesn't make A new species, Now does it?


Micro Evolution is true- The Macro is BS. You wanted A hole? Well. This is for Support of the Flood. In Arizona I think it is, on the Mesas you can find fossils of A squid thing. ALL of them are facing the same Direction. Unless Squid Suddenly Started to Naturally Line Up to Die, the fact that they face the same direction supports A fast, sudden flow of water = Noahs Flood. Disproves Evolution.

While I'm at it, I'll diss Big Bang too. If You use common sense, you can understand this. The Big Bang theory Says that the Universe was created by A dot that was spinning around SOOOO fast that it exploded and made the Galaxy. If you ask me, No matter how fast you spin, you won;t explode and make an Galaxy.

The Bible is pretty much the History of Man up to a certain date of course.


The Big Bang - Evolution Combo is A Bucketload of Shit.


Yuou Can Flame Me Now



Noah's flood prolly happened, though the myths are mostly bullshit. Ok, picture this, there probably was a massive flood in the "biblical lands" babylon, mesopotamia, pakistan, etc., after one of the ice ages in the couple-few thousands B.C. One huge flood around this time created, I think, the Black Sea, and would have been big enough to encompass the entire "Biblical world." It would have been no where near covering the entire world though. There are myths of huge floods similar to noah's arc in very many religions, so it would make sense if their follower's ancestors witnessed this "worldwide" flood, wouldn't it? How does that disprove evolution?

Oh, and evolution has plenty of holes and things which people can't explain... which is good. It's science, you don't have the answers, you try to find the best possible truth. There are things about evolution that must be found out and our understanding of must be refined and studied more and more. There are probably plenty of little things about evolution that are wrong, but that isn't a big deal. We just study them more and find out the real truth (to the best of our ability) and keep refining the theory. Evolution being a natural process of random genetic mutation and controlled natural selection is not crazy or silly, it's just another function of life trying to live as best it can.


And you simply have no fucking clue what the Big Bang was, so I don't really need to tell you anything, do I?


The bible is a load of myths, hardly a history of man. Believing that the bible is history like facts about FDR's presidency is history is just plain ignorant.

And if evolution and the bible were really like how you think they are, I would agree that they are piles of shit. I suggest you study them more before you make such conclusions, though.

You are talking About Micro Evolution. That is true. That happens every day. But If A cold Virus Adapts to Medicine, The cold you have doesn't make A new species, Now does it?

A virus isn't a species at all, so that isn't a problem at all.

Now, if a bacterial strain changes in response to medicine, and keeps on changing, it may very well become a new species.

Micro Evolution is true- The Macro is BS.

Suppose I make lots of little changes to something. Don't you think they would eventually add up to a rather large change? Separating "macro" evolution from "micro" just demonstrates a misunderstanding of the theory. There is no difference in mechanism between them. So-called "macro" evolution is simply an accumulation of lots and lots of "micro" evolution.

You wanted A hole? Well. This is for Support of the Flood.

You were asked for a known hole in evolutionary theory - not a support for an idea that, in and of itself, doesn't even contradict evolutionary theory. Please do read the question next time.

While I'm at it, I'll diss Big Bang too. If You use common sense, you can understand this. The Big Bang theory Says that the Universe was created by A dot that was spinning around SOOOO fast that it exploded and made the Galaxy. If you ask me, No matter how fast you spin, you won;t explode and make an Galaxy.

You really have no idea what you are talking about, do you? That isn't even a layman's terms description of Big Bang theory. It is something you personally made up.

The Bible is pretty much the History of Man up to a certain date of course.

Even if the Bible is accurate history, it hardly covers all of humankind. It pretty much sticks to a small subset.

I believe in both.

Evolution is definite, but something came before that. And it's definitely not the Christian creation. We may never know.

I believe in evolution simply because I think it's the most logical theory based on the evidence available to us right now. I don't believe in the existance of the supernatural. But, I certainly don't rule it out.

No reason creationism and evolution have to be mutually exclusive. After all, who is to say God didn't create animals so well that they would eventually evolve into man?

Wait, wait...how the heck does Noah's Flood disprove evolution? If there was a giant flood in one area of the world, it doesn't mean that all land was covered in a flood (Which there is no evidence whatsoever to support). And if there was a Great Flood, there's absolutely no reason a whole lot of animals couldn't have found high ground.

Your logic seems to be...

"There is some historical evidence that there may have been a giant flood at some point in history.

Therefore, Noah's Flood happened exactly as it was in the bible.

Therefore, only two of each species survived, disproving evolution."

Now, forget that there's way too much genetic diversity in all animal species to come from just two animals of each type, and forget that new animal species are still occasionally being discovered. Forget also that animals differ by region, which would not be the case if only two animals of each type survived the great flood.

So, unless you can find the fossils of two unicorns that were too busy playing to get on Noah's ark....

Maybe you should accept that your beliefs are simply a matter of personal faith, and there's no physical proof for any of them. That's perfectly fine of course, you don't need proof for personal faith, or else it wouldn't be faith. But don't pretend you've 'Disproven' anything, either.

if one is Christian, you must believe in creationism if not because you know why the flaw is? because then it would say suffering existed before adam and eve, then it would mean Jesus sacrifice is vain.

That doesn't even make sense. Suffering existing before Adam and Eve (who are, themselves, most likely metaphors for the developing human race) wouldn't somehow make salvation impossible. It would simply mean that the Augustinian view of salvation might be incorrect.

He fucked us up to make us arrogant, seslfish and stupid.


That's called Sin. God didn't mess anything up, but He made us with a free will so we wouldn't be His robots and say we were forced to follow Him. WE make us arrogant, selfish, stupid, and anything else that is the opposite of good.

As for the subject of the thread, I believe in the literal 6-day creation, not only because the Bible says (which is a pretty good reason, considering God wrote it!), but because logically, there is no other way. Darwin must've been on some serious crack, and somehow conviced others he was right, because Evoloution has no solid foundation whatsoever. Micro-evolution, yes. Transmutation is scientifically and biologically impossible, as is Macro-evolution. Why do human beings insist on making everything so complicated, when the matter is really so simple?

Wait, wait...how the heck does Noah's Flood disprove evolution? If there was a giant flood in one area of the world, it doesn't mean that all land was covered in a flood (Which there is no evidence whatsoever to support). And if there was a Great Flood, there's absolutely no reason a whole lot of animals couldn't have found high ground.


The Bible says the Flood covered the highest mountain top by 20 feet. If it was contrained to one region, meaning it was hemmed in by mountains, it could not have covered it without flowing over into the next region, thus filling it up, and so on, until the entire earth was covered. I've heard your arguement before, and it don't hold water (no pun intended).

As for the subject of the thread, I believe in the literal 6-day creation,

So you reject the second creation story in Genesis?

not only because the Bible says (which is a pretty good reason, considering God wrote it!),

Really? God personally wrote your personal copy of the Bible? Did He autograph it? Because that's definitely something I'd like to see.

but because logically, there is no other way. Darwin must've been on some serious crack, and somehow conviced others he was right, because Evoloution has no solid foundation whatsoever.

I'm fairly certain that you are the one on crack, my dear. Unless you care to support anything you have said here....

Micro-evolution, yes. Transmutation is scientifically and biologically impossible, as is Macro-evolution.

What does transmutation have to do with anything?

Meanwhile, "macroevolution" is nothing more than an accumulation of changes from "microevolution." To say that one is possible and the other isn't is like saying I can put buttons on my sweater, but I can't use it to create a skirt. I absolutely can use it to make a skirt - doing so simply requires many more changes.

The Bible says the Flood covered the highest mountain top by 20 feet. If it was contrained to one region, meaning it was hemmed in by mountains, it could not have covered it without flowing over into the next region, thus filling it up, and so on, until the entire earth was covered. I've heard your arguement before, and it don't hold water (no pun intended).

Have you ever heard of Johnny Appleseed? Paul Bunyan? Davey Crockett? These were most likely real people - who did real things. But, over time and telling and retelling, they got blown a bit out of proportion. Considering the amount of generations in which the Old Testament stories were passed down by word of mouth, not to mention the multiple scribings and translations after that, there is really no reason to believe that every word is absolutely literal - nor is there any need to if you are looking for the point of the tale.

So you reject the second creation story in Genesis?

What, "Second Creation Story"? :rolleyes:


Really? God personally wrote your personal copy of the Bible? Did He autograph it? Because that's definitely something I'd like to see.

Yeah, the ink in my Bible came from God's personal pen, just like every book on your bookshelf was handwritten by thier authors in the form you own them. :rolleyes: C'mon! Some of it was actually written by God (i.e. Ten Commandments), but the majority was inspired and dictated by God who used men to transcribe the words.

The rest of your ramblings have no merit and contain no sense, so I will not waste my time on them. Besides, I have to be at work at 7:15 AM and I gotta' hit the sack.

The rest of your ramblings have no merit and contain no sense, so I will not waste my time on them.

Considering the rest of his statement, this particular gem caused me to burst out in a fit of uncontrollable laughter. Thank you sir for the hypocritical statement of the microsecond!

What, "Second Creation Story"? :rolleyes:

So yet another declaration of ignorance of source material? Allegiance to whisper, indeed, keeping the oral tradition of "the telephone game". *shakes head* :(

Indeed. People as virulent as that make me giggle with anticipation.

The rest of your ramblings have no merit and contain no sense, so I will not waste my time on them.Your ramblings would have this <--> much more credibility if you actually provided reasons other than "It says so in my Bible, so nah!"

What, "Second Creation Story"? :rolleyes:

Oh, so you haven't actually read Genesis then? At least not very closely. There are no less than two separate Creation stories in Genesis - one which scholars attribute to the "Priestly" author and one which is attributed to the "Yahwist". The priestly version is the one you cited - 6 day creation and a 7th of rest. In that story, humankind (both male and female) are the pinnacle of creation - the end of the story. God is all-powerful, but somewhat aloof, simply speaking and having things happen. Humankind is told to be fruitful and multiply.

In the second Creation story - the Adam and Eve story, man (specifically, Adam) is made practically first, with the rest of creation, including women, being made *for* him, rather than with humanity as the pinnacle. In this story, animals are actually formed after Adam - and brought to him to be named. Even is formed even later. God is described as being very present - and even as making mistakes - common of the Yahwist author, who personifies God much more so than the Priestly author.

Yeah, the ink in my Bible came from God's personal pen, just like every book on your bookshelf was handwritten by thier authors in the form you own them. :rolleyes: C'mon!

Then you must admit that your copy of the Bible may be rife with mistakes, translation mistakes being only the first of them.

Some of it was actually written by God (i.e. Ten Commandments), but the majority was inspired and dictated by God who used men to transcribe the words.

Inspired and dictated are two very different things. Which was it? Keep in mind that a God who was dictating would thus necessarily approve of slavery, the denigration of women, and wouldn't understand basic biology.

The rest of your ramblings have no merit and contain no sense, so I will not waste my time on them. Besides, I have to be at work at 7:15 AM and I gotta' hit the sack.

In other words, you can't answer them any better than you did the first portion of my post - which is to say that you didnt.

I think to be 100% creationist you have to be incredibly naive, but I don't think 100% evolutionist is the answer either. Obviously the earth was constructed EXACTLY so that human beings could manipulate every single part of it to their liking. You can't tell me that human beings just happened to evolve to become hundreds of times smarter than the next smartest animal. If that were the case we would have at least SOME kind of rival for intelligence.

I think to be 100% creationist you have to be incredibly naive, but I don't think 100% evolutionist is the answer either. Obviously the earth was constructed EXACTLY so that human beings could manipulate every single part of it to their liking. You can't tell me that human beings just happened to evolve to become hundreds of times smarter than the next smartest animal. If that were the case we would have at least SOME kind of rival for intelligence.

We did.

The early humans had neanderthals. But homo sapiens(?) killed them all

I think to be 100% creationist you have to be incredibly naive, but I don't think 100% evolutionist is the answer either. Obviously the earth was constructed EXACTLY so that human beings could manipulate every single part of it to their liking. You can't tell me that human beings just happened to evolve to become hundreds of times smarter than the next smartest animal. If that were the case we would have at least SOME kind of rival for intelligence.

What makes you think we're hundreds of times smarter?

I think to be 100% creationist you have to be incredibly naive, but I don't think 100% evolutionist is the answer either. Obviously the earth was constructed EXACTLY so that human beings could manipulate every single part of it to their liking. You can't tell me that human beings just happened to evolve to become hundreds of times smarter than the next smartest animal. If that were the case we would have at least SOME kind of rival for intelligence.
This should give us all a bit of humbleness:

If all mankind were to disappear, the world would regenerate back to the rich state of equilibrium that existed ten thousand years ago. If insects were to vanish, the environment would collapse into chaos. ~Edward O. Wilson

I think to be 100% creationist you have to be incredibly naive, but I don't think 100% evolutionist is the answer either. Obviously the earth was constructed EXACTLY so that human beings could manipulate every single part of it to their liking. You can't tell me that human beings just happened to evolve to become hundreds of times smarter than the next smartest animal. If that were the case we would have at least SOME kind of rival for intelligence.

even though the last few posters also quoted you I thought I would anyway. The reason that we dont have a rival (anymore) is because of natural selection, the driving force of evolution. the neanderthals are extinct, or absorbed into our species. our next closest rivals, the great apes, are all endangered, largely thanks to us. thats competition for you.

The Bible says the Flood covered the highest mountain top by 20 feet. If it was contrained to one region, meaning it was hemmed in by mountains, it could not have covered it without flowing over into the next region, thus filling it up, and so on, until the entire earth was covered. I've heard your arguement before, and it don't hold water (no pun intended).

To cover the highest mountaintop by 20 feet, you'd need to cover all of Earth in about 8 kilometers of water. All of the ice on Earth melted + all of the water vapor would cover the Earth in about 100 meters of water. Not to mention the rain would be falling at about 30ft/hr.

EDIT: My bad, Mt. Everest is about 8,450m above sea level.

I hate to break it to you, but evolution is actually less scientific than creationism. If you actually study, in depth the bases and the whole of the Theory of Evolution, and keep in mind want real SCIENCE is (anything that can be observed, measured, and repeated), you will see, as I did, that evolution doesn't make much sense, and has many different holes in it, along with no truly affirming evidence.
Less scientific? Unobservable? No.
We can watch evolution happen. Look at diseases gaining resistance to medicines, that's evolution. Or look at the case of the nylon bug (http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm). These are all evolution, and they are all happening.

On top of that, the basis of evolution is sound on its own. Unfit creatures die? Obviously. Resources are limited? Check. Genetic traits are hereditary? Yup. Mutations can occur? Definately. Of course, that doesn't account for every little bit of the modern theory, but it does account for some form of evolution.

If evolution has so many holes in it, what exactly are they?

Less scientific? Unobservable? No.
We can watch evolution happen. Look at diseases gaining resistance to medicines, that's evolution. Or look at the case of the nylon bug (http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm). These are all evolution, and they are all happening.

On top of that, the basis of evolution is sound on its own. Unfit creatures die? Obviously. Resources are limited? Check. Genetic traits are hereditary? Yup. Mutations can occur? Definately. Of course, that doesn't account for every little bit of the modern theory, but it does account for some form of evolution.

If evolution has so many holes in it, what exactly are they?

Well if you don't know them, you obviously haven't looked hard enough. :rolleyes: Evolutionists, they're so stupid. ( :p Just kidding)

I believe in evolution.

It makes sense. The genetic research we've been doing for half a century and ongoing help prove it, and there's stacks of connections going back through time to back it up. We've had 12 pages already with better researched information than I know, but to me it is the only sensible conclusion to draw.

I'm not going to knock others faith or insist they're wrong - you ain't going to change folk's opinion during the course of a thread on NS no matter how hard you argue - as they've been presumably been broguht up that way. If they want to believe that and in heaven/hell, then let them be as it's what makes them happy.

I don't need that though.

I'm studying biology by the way, so I guess I'm always going to be on evolution's side!

Other/Combination of both/neither

I believe in evolution in the same way i believe the sky is blue. You can't just renounce reason becuase some douche writes something 'in the name of God' otherwise you might as well believe everything written in the name of God ranging from stoning your daughter for not being a virgin when you marry her off to supporting both Bush and Bin Laden becuase they operate through the 'word of God'.

I love all of you people.

But especially the creationists. You guys really provide me with some of the best, most hilarious moments in my day.

I almost always read all the way through these threads.

So, thank you.

i really cant say,

no one will ever know, science cant prove or disprove either

and even then who is too say our science is right, they also used to think the earth was flat and everything revovled around it.

Neither.

Creationism seems to be an easy way out of a complicated problem, and of course can't be proven until God decides to come down and say hi to the world in person.

But, as good a theory as evolution is, it is just that, a theory. I don't think of it as a belief, just a very good explanation of how living things developed. Of course, I don't really see either idea as mutually exclusive, either. Creationism claims to tell of how the world began and evolution claims to tell how it grew and matured.

and even then who is too say our science is right, they also used to think the earth was flat and everything revovled around it.

when was that held by science?

I think to be 100% creationist you have to be incredibly naive, but I don't think 100% evolutionist is the answer either. Obviously the earth was constructed EXACTLY so that human beings could manipulate every single part of it to their liking. You can't tell me that human beings just happened to evolve to become hundreds of times smarter than the next smartest animal. If that were the case we would have at least SOME kind of rival for intelligence.Oh, but we do. An octopus or a dolphin just don't have hands or ambition.

This should give us all a bit of humbleness:

If all mankind were to disappear, the world would regenerate back to the rich state of equilibrium that existed ten thousand years ago. If insects were to vanish, the environment would collapse into chaos. ~Edward O. WilsonIsn't accurate though. There was no equilibrium and never has been.

Evolution. Why? Because I understand it.

If you understand it on the simplest level, then it seems intuitive: that which is most efficient at replicating itself with allocated resources will come out with more descendants... and thus repeating.

It's rather simple. At one point there were amino acids being randomly built in the ancient earth (already demonstrated to be able to happen). One of these had the unique ability to, rather than shape nearby molecules into something arbitrary, a duplicate of itself (or a negative, in the means of a photograph, going positive-negative-ad infinitum). And this did so, with random "mishaps" in copying itself. Eventually they start "grabbing" other things to house themselves to prevent from being broken down by other, competing molecules... and thus begins the origins of a cell as we know it.

Over time, there's naturally more mutations, and so complexity rises as an inevitable result (because they can't get much simpler than basic cells, and random diversity dictates that there will be a statistical shift toward complexity when against a wall of minimal simplicity to start).

The distinction between macro- and micro- evolution is BULL, for one, though. Evolution follows on a gene-centric, not species-centric model (as is often misconceived). Evidence? Numerous, organism- and species-detrimental genetic elements like the Medea code which kills offspring that have not inhereted the gene in beetles. (The existance of selfish genetic elements which propogate despite being detrimental to the organism is also good grounds against "intelligent design").

Also, the distinction of species is really quite arbitrary. Any decent biologist will admit to as much (see also: ring species). The denial of macro-evolution also flies in the face of 20+ observed instances of speciation (using the arbitrary definitions, of course).

"You can't tell me that human beings just happened to evolve to become hundreds of times smarter than the next smartest animal. If that were the case we would have at least SOME kind of rival for intelligence."

Actually, it's rather simple. Consider that our rivals are NOT other species (the fallacy of species-centric competition), but were other humans, and the craftiest people were adulterers who got away with it by use of (slightly better) language skills and manipulation.

and even then who is too say our science is right, they also used to think the earth was flat and everything revovled around it.

Thank you for providing such a powerful argument for regarding science as superior to superstition. Science, as you point out so eloquently, admits its mistakes and changes when new evidence emerges. Superstition on the other hand merely continues to blindly assert that it's right regardless of fresh evidence.

Incidently it was common knowledge that the world was round by the time of Pliny the Elder, there were no real scientists around at the time either, Natural Philosophy was the norm.

I believe in a thing called love

I believe I can fly
I believe I can touch the sky
I think about it every night and day
Spread my wings and fly away

I believe in miracles.
I believe in a better world for me and you.
Oh, I believe in miracles.
I believe in a better world for me and you.

I believe in you even through the tears and the laughter,
I believe in you even though we be apart.
I believe in you even on the morning after.

I believe in miracles
Where you from - You sexy thing :D

Now, if anybody is still paying attention, I offer you a (relevant) quote:
The big organising priciples of science are theories, coherent systems of thought that explain huge numbers of otherwise isolated facts, which have survived strenous testing deliberately designed to break them if they do not accord to reality. They have not been merely accepted as some act of scientiffic faith: instead, people have tried to falsify them - to prove them wrong - but have so far failed. These failures do not prove them true, because there are always new sources of potential discord. Isaac Newton's theory of gravitation, in conjunction with his laws of motion, was - and still is - good enough to explain the movements of planets, asteroids and other bodies of the solar system in intricate detail, with high accuracy. But in some contexts, such as black holes, it has now been replaces by Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity.

...

Most science is incremental, but some is more radical. Newton's theory was one of the great breakthroughs of science - not a shower of rain disturbing the surface of the lake, but an intellectual storm that released a raging torrent. [...] Darwin did for biology what Newton had done for physics, but in a very different way. Newton developed mathematical equations that let physicists calculate numbers and test them to many decimal places; it was a quantitive theory. Darwin's idea is expressed in words, not equations, and it describes a qualitative process, not numbers. Despite that, its influence has been at least as great as Newton's, possibly even greater. Darwin's torrent still rages today.

Evolution, then, is a theory, one of the most influential, far-reaching and important theories ever devised. In this context, it's worth pointing out that the word 'theory' is often used in a quite different sense, to mean an idea that is proposed in order to be tested. Strictly speaking, the word that should be used here is 'hypothesis', but that's such a fussy, pedantic-sounding word that people tend to avoid it. Even scientists, who should know better. 'I have a theory', they say. No, you have a hypothesis. It will take years, possibly centuries, of stringent tests, to turn it into a theory.

The theory of evolution was once a hypothesis. Now it is a theory. Detractors seize on the word and forget it's dual use. 'Only a theory', they say dismissively. But a true theory cannot be so easily dismissed, because it has survived so much rigorous testing. In this respect there is far more reason to take the theory of evolution seriously than any explanation of life that depends on, say religious faith, because falsification is not high on the religious agenda. Theories, in that sense, are the best established, most credible parts of science. They are, by and large, considerably more credible than most other products of the human mind. So what these people are thinking of when they chant their dismissive slogan should actually be 'only a hypothesis'.

That was a defensible position in the early days of the theory of evolution, but today it is merely ignorant. If anything can be a fact, evolution is.

See, that's what I was trying to say, but Ian Stewart & Jack Cohen said it a little bit better ;)

Now, if anybody is still paying attention, I offer you a (relevant) quote:God forbid we ever pay attention... :D

To cover the highest mountaintop by 20 feet, you'd need to cover all of Earth in about 8 kilometers of water. All of the ice on Earth melted + all of the water vapor would cover the Earth in about 100 meters of water. Not to mention the rain would be falling at about 30ft/hr.

EDIT: My bad, Mt. Everest is about 8,450m above sea level.

The Bible says "The fountains of the deep" burst during the Flood, meaning, all those subterraineal rivers exploded, sending their waters to contribute. The Pre-Flood earth was much different than it is today it's atmosphere was made up of ice particles, known as the Firmament, that protected the Earth from harmful UV rays and etc, thus resulting in longer lives and larger bodies. This Firmament also exploded in the Flood. The Flood was not entirely rain.

Note, I have read the entire book of Genesis multiple times, and there is only one story of the Creation. Others "accounts" are simply false.

The Bible says "The fountains of the deep" burst during the Flood, meaning, all those subterraineal rivers exploded, sending their waters to contribute. The Pre-Flood earth was much different than it is today it's atmosphere was made up of ice particles, known as the Firmament, that protected the Earth from harmful UV rays and etc, thus resulting in longer lives and larger bodies. This Firmament also exploded in the Flood. The Flood was not entirely rain.

Note, I have read the entire book of Genesis multiple times, and there is only one story of the Creation. Others "accounts" are simply false.How did those rivers explode? What geological evidence do we have to confirm that?

Oh, but we do. An octopus or a dolphin just don't have hands or ambition.
No ambition?
Just offer yourself as sexually receptive to either of them in the right way. It doesn't take much for a dolphin to show you the true meaning of ambition. :eek:
And yes, i've seen *direct* evidence of both.

How did those rivers explode? What geological evidence do we have to confirm that?

None.

To quote www.talkorigins.org's Problems With a Global Flood:

Hydroplate. Walt Brown's model proposes that the Flood waters came from a layer of water about ten miles underground, which was released by a catastrophic rupture of the earth's crust, shot above the atmosphere, and fell as rain.

* How was the water contained? Rock, at least the rock which makes up the earth's crust, doesn't float. The water would have been forced to the surface long before Noah's time, or Adam's time for that matter.
* Even a mile deep, the earth is boiling hot, and thus the reservoir of water would be superheated. Further heat would be added by the energy of the water falling from above the atmosphere. As with the vapor canopy model, Noah would have been poached.
* Where is the evidence? The escaping waters would have eroded the sides of the fissures, producing poorly sorted basaltic erosional deposits. These would be concentrated mainly near the fissures, but some would be shot thousands of miles along with the water. (Noah would have had to worry about falling rocks along with the rain.) Such deposits would be quite noticeable but have never been seen.

I believe that the entire universe as we know it is, in actuality, a fictional world created by a race of amorphous blobs made out of the fifth state of matter(as we would call it) which are unfathomable to us 4th dimensional beings who aren't even permanently 4th dimensional.

"We are the words on the page," so to speak.

I believe that the entire universe as we know it is, in actuality, a fictional world created by a race of amorphous blobs made out of the fifth state of matter(as we would call it) which are unfathomable to us 4th dimensional beings who aren't even permanently 4th dimensional.

"We are the words on the page," so to speak.
Fnord, so to speak.

The Great Green Arkleseizure created the Universe, duh.

No ambition?
Just offer yourself as sexually receptive to either of them in the right way. It doesn't take much for a dolphin to show you the true meaning of ambition. :eek:
And yes, i've seen *direct* evidence of both.A dolphin does not aspire to anything higher than that though. It is usually content with how it is and doesn't want anything to make its life more luxurious.

In the beginning there was the great turtle Gromagosh who existed outside of space and time. As eternities passed he decided he needed creations to glorify him and created the universe complete with the Earth above his shell. He breathed upon the Earth and gave it life and upon this Earth he created a life form in his own image: turtles. And he created thousands of species of turtles to reflect the various aspects of his infinite being. With time he decided that his creations needed stewards and for this he created humans. He gave these beings intelligence so that they could better serve their purpose; but they were proud and in rebellion turned away from their sacred charge and created new gods in their own image. There were even those who commited the ultimate blasphemy of killing turtles. But there are those who see the truth and accept their sacred charge as the glorifiers of turtles. These pious individuals were travel to the underside of Gromagosh's shell upon their death to live for eternity in perfect bliss along with all of the turtles. Those who turned their back on their creator will have their souls devoured upon their death.

There, I explained what REALLY happened; complete with explainations as to where we came from, what happens after death, and why we are here. I bet you all feel very stupid.

I feel stupid? I think NOT! I think that was the most bizaar, and humorous, fairy tale I have ever heard!:D

Anyway, where did the turtle come from?:confused:

People are so stupid and ignorant....:headbang:

Not even some of the greatest scientists believed in evolution, such as Newton.

Using my pyschic powers, I predict a flamewar in the near future.

I won't even involve myself, as I plan on going for a run in 30 minutes.

Placing bets for how long until this turns into a raging hate-debate!

I really don't understand why people even start a topic like this. I mean, first of all, there have been dozens like this one before, and second of all, it has no functional purpose. People who believe in God will never believe in evolution and vice versa, people that believe in science will never adopt creationism.

Personally, I am atheist, and I find creationism funny. The whole structure of religion is funny, and when we look at it from a psycho-social point of view, it is not hard to realise why religions occured at all. So there is no point in arguing with religious people, their blinded faith in supernatural that makes them feel safe will never allow them to think like a reasonable human being.

Which do u believe.. please also cite an intelligent reason as to why u believe what u believe in

evolution cuz i don't believe in god and no-one's come up with a more plausible theory yet.

I feel stupid? I think NOT! I think that was the most bizaar, and humorous, fairy tale I have ever heard!:D

Anyway, where did the turtle come from?:confused:

People are so stupid and ignorant....:headbang:

Not even some of the greatest scientists believed in evolution, such as Newton.
Newton didn't believe in evolution, but he did believe in alchemy. He was good at math, but he didn't have all the answers. Virtually all biologists agree that evolution happened.

Who dredged this thread up? I can still remember when it started (I seem to recall making some haughty prediction...), and it wasn't exactly last week.

Who dredged this thread up? I can still remember when it started (I seem to recall making some haughty prediction...), and it wasn't exactly last week.

Aye...Blame Spitzbergia.

Wait, when did Newton and Evolution coincide?

Aye...Blame Spitzbergia.

Wait, when did Newton and Evolution coincide?
Ask Spitzbergia.

What kind of creation? There are thousands of creation myths besides the one we've all come to know and argue about. Is the one where the Norse Gods created the earth true? What about the one where the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the earth? Come to think of it, of these hundreds of stories, how many of them even have any evidence for them? As far as I know, none. Evolution, however, does have evidence for it, in the form of the fossil record and genetics.

Is there even any reason why God would create things like the botfly, corn smut, or the deer tick? Come to think of it, are we to believe Noah brought ticks and flies on the ark?

You really have no idea what you are talking about, do you? That isn't even a layman's terms description of Big Bang theory. It is something you personally made up.

He didn't make it up. He took it from Kent "Mouth-breather" Hovind.

I think to be 100% creationist you have to be incredibly naive, but I don't think 100% evolutionist is the answer either. Obviously the earth was constructed EXACTLY so that human beings could manipulate every single part of it to their liking. You can't tell me that human beings just happened to evolve to become hundreds of times smarter than the next smartest animal. If that were the case we would have at least SOME kind of rival for intelligence.
That seems to be more of an argument for cockroaches.

A combination of both.